Impact of Excessive Weight Gain on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 1 Diabetes: Results From the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Study
OBJECTIVE Intensive treatment (INT) of type 1 diabetes reduces the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events compared with conventional treatment (CONV), but it also results in more weight gain. Our objective was to examine whether excessive weight gain from INT of type 1 diabetes is independently associated with subsequent CVD events. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Quartiles (Q) of weight gain in 1,213 participants aged 18 years and older at enrollment in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) were determined within randomized treatment groups (INT vs. CONV) using change in BMI from baseline to the closeout DCCT visits. Effects of this weight gain on CVD risk factors and outcomes during an additional 20 years of observational follow-up were then determined. RESULTS The Q4 INT group experienced greater proportional weight gain (median change in BMI, 6.08 kg/m2), increases in CVD risk factors, and need for medications for hypertension and lipids compared with the Q1–3 INT and comparable CONV groups. Over a mean of 26 years of follow-up, the numbers of major and total CVD events were not statistically different in Q4 compared with Q1–3 of either the INT or CONV group. By year 14, however, the incident CVD event curve became significantly higher in the Q4 INT group than in the Q1–3 INT groups (P = 0.024) and was similar to that for the CONV group. CONCLUSIONS For the first 13 years after DCCT, INT for type 1 diabetes reduced macrovascular events compared with CONV, even when excessive weight gain occurred. After this, total CVD events significantly increased in the Q4 INT group, becoming equivalent to those in the CONV group. Longer follow-up is needed to determine whether this trend continues and results in more major CVD events.
Participant characteristics and study features associated with high retention rates in a longitudinal investigation of type 1 diabetes mellitus
Background The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Study has sustained an extraordinarily high level of participant involvement for over two decades. Purpose In order to identify specific characteristics of EDIC that contributed most strongly to retention, study-designed questionnaires were distributed to 1334 participants. Methods Confidential questionnaires were completed during EDIC Years 15–17. Participants were classified as Completely Adherent (completed all visits), Partly Adherent (missed >1 visit or major portion of a visit), or Inactive (did not participate for >5 years). Questionnaire items addressed specific aspects of clinic visits, evaluation procedures, staff–participant relationships, and medical/health-care support provided by EDIC. Results The most commonly cited reasons for continuing participation were Cutting Edge Tests to assess diabetes complications (79.3%), Annual Evaluations (67.7%), a desire to Help Others (65.2%), and Better Care for Diabetes (61.6%). Women chose Cutting Edge Tests as their first or second most important reason significantly more often than men, whereas men chose Better Care for Diabetes more frequently. Individuals with at least three diabetes-related complications were more likely than those with fewer complications to choose Annual Evaluations as their first or second reason for continued involvement. Limitations The small proportion of individuals who discontinued participation restricted our ability to identify factors associated with suspended involvement. In addition, our analysis is limited to a cohort with type 1 diabetes followed in an observational study after an average participation time of 6.5 years in a randomized trial. Conclusions The primary reasons identified by respondents for their long-term commitment are consistent with shorter-term studies and underscore the importance of expert medical care, supportive staff–participant relationships, and involvement with clinically and scientifically meaningful research.